DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-2 and 10 are presented as currently amended claims.
Claims 3-9 and 11-15 are presented as original claims.
No claims are newly presented.
No claims are cancelled.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7, 9-10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20220324438 A1) in view of Ould-Ahmen-Vall et al. (US 20160091328 A1) (the combination of which will be referenced hereinafter as ‘combination Liu’)
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a method of:
of controlling a subject vehicle (SV), the method comprising: performing by an automated driving system (ADS), a dynamic driving task (DDT); (Liu: ¶ 115; high-level automated driving system controls the driving of a vehicle . . . If the driver does not respond to the take over request within a take over time preset in the system, the system enters a minimum risk maneuver (Minimal Risk Maneuver, MRM) mode and performs longitudinal control) determining, by the ADS, whether a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) is needed to reduce a risk of collision with an object, (Liu: ¶ 187; a vehicle receives road obstruction information sent by a road side unit (RSU). For example, a large stone occupies a road in the curve to block traffic.) based on a trigger condition for the MRM; (Liu: ¶ 116; that a steering mechanism of the vehicle is faulty (for example, insensitive in steering) at this moment, the vehicle is out of control of the automated driving system, and there is no response within a preset period of time after the system proposes a take over request to a driver.) and controlling, by the ADS, the SV to execute an automated driving MRM that satisfies a minimum risk condition (MRC), (Liu: ¶ 116; In this case, the system enters a minimum risk maneuver mode and performs deceleration control on the vehicle to stop the vehicle as soon as possible.)
To the extent Liu does not teach or is silent about: wherein the trigger condition for activating the MRM includes: a first condition of receiving MRM activation request information from an external entity; and second condition of determining the trigger condition for the MRM and performing the MRM by the SV; Ould-Ahmen-Vall does teach:
wherein the trigger condition for activating the MRM includes: a first condition of receiving MRM activation request information from an external entity; (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 059; device 110 determines that the reference traffic event occurs corresponds to, or is otherwise similar to, one or more segments of a navigation route (e.g., an existing route, a commonly traveled route, a future route, etc.) associated with the remote vehicle 108. As such, in block 608, the mobile navigation device 110 transmits route update data to the remote mobile navigation device 130 of the remote vehicle 108 in response to determining that a reference traffic event occurs within the segment of the current route of the vehicle 104. The route update data may be used by the remote mobile navigation device 130 to update corresponding or similar segments of navigation route (e.g., the existing route, commonly traveled route, future route, etc.) of the remote vehicle 108 to avoid the occurrence of the reference traffic event) and second condition of determining the trigger condition for the MRM and performing the MRM by the SV. (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 059; the route update data may be analyzed by the remote mobile navigation device 130 to facilitate avoidance of the reference traffic event occurrence by the remote vehicle 108.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ould-Ahmen-Vall with the teachings of Liu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of better "determin[g] whether a reference traffic event occurs within a segment." (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 037).
Regarding claim 7, as detailed above, combination Liu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Liu further discloses:
wherein, in response to the determination that the MRM is needed based on the trigger condition for the MRM, the method further comprises: (Liu: ¶ 115; an existing implementation solution of the minimum risk maneuver (MRM) mode depends on a specific component or a function failure of the vehicle. In this case, a corresponding result after minimum risk maneuver (MRM) is performed may be: The vehicle pulls over, the vehicle stops directly in an original lane, the vehicle stops in the original lane, or the vehicle stops in an adjacent lane.) selecting an MRM type based on internal (Liu: ¶ 115; high-level automated driving system controls the driving of a vehicle . . . If the driver does not respond to the take over request within a take over time preset in the system, the system enters a minimum risk maneuver (Minimal Risk Maneuver, MRM) mode and performs longitudinal control) and external information, and (Liu: ¶ 187; before entering the curve, the vehicle receives the road obstruction information sent by the road side unit (RSU). For example, a large stone occupies a road in the curve to block traffic.) changing the selected MRM type in response to changes in at least one of internal factors, external factors, traffic conditions, or any combination thereof that exceed predetermined values. (Liu: ¶ 115; (MRM) mode depends on a specific component or a function failure of the vehicle. In this case, a corresponding result after minimum risk maneuver (MRM) is performed may be: The vehicle pulls over, the vehicle stops directly in an original lane, the vehicle stops in the original lane, or the vehicle stops in an adjacent lane.) (Liu: ¶ 117; can automatically take a related measure in time to enable the vehicle to leave the curve and stop at P2. A field of view of a vehicle behind entering the curve is not to be limited relative to this stopping position, so that the vehicle behind can make an avoidance response in time, and a rear-end collision accident in FIG. 1(2) is avoided.)
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, combination Liu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Liu further discloses:
further comprising: during a change in the MRM type, allowing a driver to take over control of the vehicle over the DDT. (Liu: ¶ 115; high-level automated driving system controls the driving of a vehicle . . . If the driver does not respond to the take over request within a take over time preset in the system, the system enters a minimum risk maneuver (Minimal Risk Maneuver, MRM) mode and performs longitudinal control)
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches a device for:
controlling a subject vehicle (SV), the device comprising: the device comprising: a transceiver; a non-transitory memory for storing instructions; and a processor, upon execution of the instructions, is configured to control an automated driving system (ADS) to: perform a dynamic driving task (DDT); (Liu: ¶ 084; chip may further include a memory. The memory stores instructions. The processor is configured to execute the instructions stored in the memory.) determine whether a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) is needed by the SV to reduce a risk of collision with an object, (Liu: ¶ 187; a vehicle receives road obstruction information sent by a road side unit (RSU). For example, a large stone occupies a road in the curve to block traffic.)based on a trigger condition for the MRM being activated; and (Liu: ¶ 116; that a steering mechanism of the vehicle is faulty (for example, insensitive in steering) at this moment, the vehicle is out of control of the automated driving system, and there is no response within a preset period of time after the system proposes a take over request to a driver.) control the SV to execute an automated driving minimum risk maneuver that satisfies a minimum risk condition (MRC) (Liu: ¶ 116; In this case, the system enters a minimum risk maneuver mode and performs deceleration control on the vehicle to stop the vehicle as soon as possible.)
To the extent Liu does not teach or is silent about: wherein the trigger condition for activating the MRM includes: a first condition of receiving MRM activation request information from an external entity; and a second condition of determining the trigger condition for the MRM and performing the MRM by the SV; Ould-Ahmen-Vall does teach:
wherein the trigger condition for activating the MRM includes: a first condition of receiving MRM activation request information from an external entity; (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 059; device 110 determines that the reference traffic event occurs corresponds to, or is otherwise similar to, one or more segments of a navigation route (e.g., an existing route, a commonly traveled route, a future route, etc.) associated with the remote vehicle 108. As such, in block 608, the mobile navigation device 110 transmits route update data to the remote mobile navigation device 130 of the remote vehicle 108 in response to determining that a reference traffic event occurs within the segment of the current route of the vehicle 104. The route update data may be used by the remote mobile navigation device 130 to update corresponding or similar segments of navigation route (e.g., the existing route, commonly traveled route, future route, etc.) of the remote vehicle 108 to avoid the occurrence of the reference traffic event) and a second condition of determining the trigger condition for the MRM and performing the MRM by the SV; (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 059; the route update data may be analyzed by the remote mobile navigation device 130 to facilitate avoidance of the reference traffic event occurrence by the remote vehicle 108.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ould-Ahmen-Vall with the teachings of Liu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of better "determin[g] whether a reference traffic event occurs within a segment." (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 037).
Regarding claim 14, as detailed above, combination Liu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 10. Liu further discloses:
wherein in response to the determination that the MRM is needed based on the trigger condition for the MRM, the processor is further configured to: (Liu: ¶ 116; that a steering mechanism of the vehicle is faulty (for example, insensitive in steering) at this moment, the vehicle is out of control of the automated driving system, and there is no response within a preset period of time after the system proposes a take over request to a driver.) select an MRM type based on internal and external information; and change the selected MRM type in response to changes in at least one of internal factors, external factors, traffic conditions, or any combination thereof that exceed predetermined values. (Liu: ¶ 115; an existing implementation solution of the minimum risk maneuver (MRM) mode depends on a specific component or a function failure of the vehicle. In this case, a corresponding result after minimum risk maneuver (MRM) is performed may be: The vehicle pulls over, the vehicle stops directly in an original lane, the vehicle stops in the original lane, or the vehicle stops in an adjacent lane.) (Liu: ¶ 187; before entering the curve, the vehicle receives the road obstruction information sent by the road side unit (RSU). For example, a large stone occupies a road in the curve to block traffic.)
Regarding claim 15, as detailed above, combination Liu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 14. Liu further discloses:
wherein in response to a change in the MRM type while the ADS is performing the MRM, the processor is further configured to control the ADS to prevent multiple MRM type changes from delaying attainment of the MRC. (Liu: ¶ 115; (MRM) mode depends on a specific component or a function failure of the vehicle. In this case, a corresponding result after minimum risk maneuver (MRM) is performed may be: The vehicle pulls over, the vehicle stops directly in an original lane, the vehicle stops in the original lane, or the vehicle stops in an adjacent lane.) (Liu: ¶ 116; a steering mechanism of the vehicle is faulty . . . system enters a minimum risk maneuver mode and performs deceleration control on the vehicle to stop the vehicle as soon as possible.) (Liu: ¶ 117; can automatically take a related measure in time to enable the vehicle to leave the curve and stop at P2. A field of view of a vehicle behind entering the curve is not to be limited relative to this stopping position, so that the vehicle behind can make an avoidance response in time, and a rear-end collision accident in FIG. 1(2) is avoided.)
Regarding claim 16, as detailed above, combination Liu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 14. Liu further discloses:
wherein during a change in the MRM type, the processor is further configured to allow a driver to take over control of the vehicle over the DDT. (Liu: ¶ 115; high-level automated driving system controls the driving of a vehicle . . . If the driver does not respond to the take over request within a take over time preset in the system, the system enters a minimum risk maneuver (Minimal Risk Maneuver, MRM) mode and performs longitudinal control)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 20210204306 A1).
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, combination Liu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Liu further teaches:
further comprising: receiving, by the SV, information indicating an MRM activation request from an infrastructure, the infrastructure comprising a first infrastructure (Liu: ¶ 187; before entering the curve, the vehicle receives the road obstruction information sent by the road side unit (RSU). For example, a large stone occupies a road in the curve to block traffic.) (Liu: ¶ 042; monitoring apparatus may be a transceiver in the vehicle, and may be configured to receive driving safety information sent by a road side unit, a server, or the like.) . . . indicating the MRM activation request . . . (Liu: ¶ 115; system enters a minimum risk maneuver) . . . indicating the MRM activation . . . (Liu: ¶ 116; In this case, the system enters a minimum risk maneuver mode and performs deceleration control on the vehicle to stop the vehicle as soon as possible.)
To the extent Liu is silent about or does not explicitly teach: . . . and a second infrastructure, and the second infrastructure between the first infrastructure and the SV, and the second infrastructure being closer to the SV than the first infrastructure; transmitting the information . . . to the SV based on event information related to at least one of a vehicle accident or a structure collapse incident; transmitting, by the first infrastructure, the event information to the second infrastructure; and transmitting, by the second infrastructure, the . . . request to the SV based on the event information; Li does teach:
PNG
media_image1.png
342
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a second infrastructure, and the second infrastructure between the first infrastructure and the SV, and the second infrastructure being closer to the SV than the first infrastructure; (Li: Fig. 10; Clm. 14 receive safety wanting information broadcasted by the first V2X communication group using the resource pool, or send the safety warning information to the other RSU within a coverage area of the first RSU, to make the other RSU broadcast the safety warning information within their own coverage.) transmitting the information . . . to the SV based on event information related to at least one of a vehicle accident or a structure collapse incident; (Li: ¶ 087; vehicle on the right side has an accident, and it can broadcast safety warning information to surrounding vehicles and RSU with pre-allocated resources). transmitting, by the first infrastructure, the event information to the second infrastructure; and transmitting, by the second infrastructure, the information . . . request to the SV based on the event information. (Li: Fig. 10; Clm. 14 receive safety wanting information broadcasted by the first V2X communication group using the resource pool, or send the safety warning information to the other RSU within a coverage area of the first RSU, to make the other RSU broadcast the safety warning information within their own coverage.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Li with the teachings of Liu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "solving a problem of low performance of the Internet of Vehicles [when] a V2X communication link is easily interrupted" (Li: ¶ 005).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Liu in view of Li as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Schmidt et al. (US 20200156630 A1).
Regarding claim 3, as detailed above, combination Liu in view of Li teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 2. Liu further teaches:
wherein the second infrastructure is configured to, at least one of: transmit the information indicating the MRM activation request to the SV (Liu: ¶ 187; before entering the curve, the vehicle receives the road obstruction information sent by the road side unit (RSU). For example, a large stone occupies a road in the curve to block traffic.) (Liu: ¶ 042; monitoring apparatus may be a transceiver in the vehicle, and may be configured to receive driving safety information sent by a road side unit, a server, or the like.) (Liu: ¶ 115; system enters a minimum risk maneuver)
And Ould-Ahmen-Vall teaches: when a proportion of an area of a driving lane obstruction caused by at least one of the vehicle accident or the structure collapse incident in a driving lane of a road for the SV is greater than or equal to a threshold; (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 037; a reference type of traffic accident (e.g., a fender bender, an accident blocking one or more lanes of traffic, etc.), a reference amount of roadway construction (e.g., a threshold distance of roadway under construction, a threshold number of lanes reduced in a construction zone, etc.), a reference roadway obstruction (e.g., a predefined type of roadway obstruction, a threshold number of lanes reduced because of a roadway obstruction, etc.)).
To the extent Liu is silent about or does not explicitly teach: transmit the information indicating the MRM activation request to the SV when a specific height of the driving lane obstruction caused by at least one of the vehicle accident or the structure collapse incident in the driving lane of the road for the SV is greater than or equal to a threshold; or a combination thereof; Schmidt does teach:
transmit the information indicating the MRM activation request to the SV when a specific height of the driving lane obstruction caused by at least one of the vehicle accident or the structure collapse incident in the driving lane of the road for the SV is greater than or equal to a threshold; or a combination thereof. (Schmidt: ¶ 055; controlling an operation of the vehicle 102a in response to determining that the vehicle height and/or the load height is greater than or equal to the threshold height.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Schmidt with the teachings of Liu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "reducing collisions with unmarked overhead hazards" (Schmidt: ¶ 004).
Claims 4-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Liu as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Schmidt et al. (US 20200156630 A1).
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, combination Liu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Liu further teaches:
wherein the SV receives information indicating an MRM activation request based on event information from an infrastructure adjacent to the SV, (Liu: ¶ 042; monitoring apparatus may be a transceiver in the vehicle, and may be configured to receive driving safety information sent by a road side unit, a server, or the like.) (Liu: ¶ 115; system enters a minimum risk maneuver) . . . wherein, at least one of: the information indicating the MRM activation request is transmitted to the SV by the infrastructure (Liu: ¶ 187; before entering the curve, the vehicle receives the road obstruction information sent by the road side unit (RSU). For example, a large stone occupies a road in the curve to block traffic.)
And Ould-Ahmen-Vall teaches: wherein the event information comprises at least one of a vehicle accident, a structure collapse incident, or a combination thereof, (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 037; a reference type of traffic accident (e.g., a fender bender, an accident blocking one or more lanes of traffic, etc.), a reference amount of roadway construction (e.g., a threshold distance of roadway under construction, a threshold number of lanes reduced in a construction zone, etc.), a reference roadway obstruction (e.g., a predefined type of roadway obstruction, a threshold number of lanes reduced because of a roadway obstruction, etc.)). . . . wherein the event information is acquired by the infrastructure based on at least one of a camera of the infrastructure, a sensor of the infrastructure, at least one vehicle neighboring the infrastructure, or any combination thereof, and (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 057; the sensor(s) 120 of the mobile navigation device 110 generate sensor data associated with [inter alia] the traffic data may be indicative of a traffic accident identified) (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 060; mobile navigation device 110 generates the alternate route for the remote vehicle 108 based on the sensor data generated by the sensor(s) 120 and the determined occurrence of the reference traffic event.) . . . in response to a proportion of an area of a driving lane obstruction caused by at least one of the vehicle accident (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 037; a reference type of traffic accident (e.g., a fender bender, an accident blocking one or more lanes of traffic, etc.), a reference amount of roadway construction (e.g., a threshold distance of roadway under construction, a threshold number of lanes reduced in a construction zone, etc.), a reference roadway obstruction (e.g., a predefined type of roadway obstruction, a threshold number of lanes reduced because of a roadway obstruction, etc.))
To the extent Liu is silent about or does not explicitly teach: or the structure collapse incident in a driving lane of a road for the SV being greater than or equal to a threshold; the information indicating the MRM activation request is transmitted to the SV by the infrastructure in response to a specific height of the driving lane obstruction caused by at least one of the vehicle accident or the structure collapse incident in the driving lane of the road for the SV being greater than or equal to a threshold; or a combination thereof; Schmidt does teach:
or the structure collapse incident in a driving lane of a road for the SV being greater than or equal to a threshold; the information indicating the MRM activation request is transmitted to the SV by the infrastructure in response to a specific height of the driving lane obstruction caused by at least one of the vehicle accident or the structure collapse incident in the driving lane of the road for the SV being greater than or equal to a threshold; or a combination thereof. (Schmidt: ¶ 055; controlling an operation of the vehicle 102a in response to determining that the vehicle height and/or the load height is greater than or equal to the threshold height.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Schmidt with the teachings of Liu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "reducing collisions with unmarked overhead hazards" (Schmidt: ¶ 004).
Regarding claim 5, as detailed above, combination Liu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Liu further teaches:
wherein the SV receives information indicating an MRM activation request from a vehicle adjacent to the SV based on event information, (Liu: ¶ 042; monitoring apparatus may be a transceiver in the vehicle, and may be configured to receive driving safety information sent by a road side unit, a server, or the like.) (Liu: ¶ 115; system enters a minimum risk maneuver) wherein the event information comprises at least one of a vehicle accident, a structure collapse incident, or a combination thereof, (Liu: ¶ 152; driving safety information may be a received event in which a road is occupied because a vehicle collision accident)
And Ould-Ahmen-Vall does teach: wherein the event information is acquired by the adjacent vehicle based on at least one of a camera of the adjacent vehicle, a sensor of the adjacent vehicle, at least one vehicle neighboring the adjacent vehicle, or any combination thereof, and wherein at least one of: the information indicating the MRM activation request is transmitted to the SV by the adjacent vehicle in response to a proportion of an area of a driving lane obstruction caused by at least one of the vehicle accident (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 057; the sensor(s) 120 of the mobile navigation device 110 generate sensor data associated with [inter alia] the traffic data may be indicative of a traffic accident identified) (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 060; mobile navigation device 110 generates the alternate route for the remote vehicle 108 based on the sensor data generated by the sensor(s) 120 and the determined occurrence of the reference traffic event.) wherein at least one of: the information indicating the MRM activation request is transmitted to the SV by the adjacent vehicle in response to a proportion of an area of a driving lane obstruction caused by at least one of the vehicle accident (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 060; the route update data transmitted by the mobile navigation device 110 includes an alternate route for use by the remote mobile navigation device 130 to avoid the corresponding or similar segments of the navigation route of the remote vehicle 108 in which the reference traffic event is determined to have occurred) (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 037; a reference type of traffic accident (e.g., a fender bender, an accident blocking one or more lanes of traffic, etc.), a reference amount of roadway construction (e.g., a threshold distance of roadway under construction, a threshold number of lanes reduced in a construction zone, etc.), a reference roadway obstruction (e.g., a predefined type of roadway obstruction, a threshold number of lanes reduced because of a roadway obstruction, etc.))
To the extent Liu is silent about or does not explicitly teach: or the structure collapse incident in a driving lane of a road for the SV being greater than or equal to a threshold; or the information indicating the MRM activation request is transmitted to the SV by the adjacent vehicle in response to a specific height of the driving lane obstruction caused by at least one of the vehicle accident or the structure collapse incident in the driving lane of the road for the SV being greater than or equal to a threshold. Schmidt does teach:
or the structure collapse incident in a driving lane of a road for the SV being greater than or equal to a threshold; or the information indicating the MRM activation request is transmitted to the SV by the adjacent vehicle in response to a specific height of the driving lane obstruction caused by at least one of the vehicle accident or the structure collapse incident in the driving lane of the road for the SV being greater than or equal to a threshold. (Schmidt: ¶ 055; controlling an operation of the vehicle 102a in response to determining that the vehicle height and/or the load height is greater than or equal to the threshold height.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Schmidt with the teachings of Liu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "reducing collisions with unmarked overhead hazards" (Schmidt: ¶ 004).
Regarding claim 6, as detailed above, combination Liu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Liu further teaches:
further comprising at least one of: determining, by the SV, the trigger condition for the MRM based on an error occurring in at least one of a communication module or a sensing module of the SV; (Liu: ¶ 187; before entering the curve, the vehicle receives the road obstruction information sent by the road side unit (RSU). For example, a large stone occupies a road in the curve to block traffic.)
And Ould-Ahmen-Vall teaches: determining, by the SV, the trigger condition for the MRM in response to: event information including at least one of a vehicle accident (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 037; a reference type of traffic accident (e.g., a fender bender, an accident blocking one or more lanes of traffic, etc.), a reference amount of roadway construction (e.g., a threshold distance of roadway under construction, a threshold number of lanes reduced in a construction zone, etc.), a reference roadway obstruction (e.g., a predefined type of roadway obstruction, a threshold number of lanes reduced because of a roadway obstruction, etc.)) a proportion of an area of a driving lane obstruction caused by at least one of the vehicle accident or the structure collapse incident in a driving lane of a road for the SV being greater than or equal to a threshold; (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 037; a reference type of traffic accident (e.g., a fender bender, an accident blocking one or more lanes of traffic, etc.), a reference amount of roadway construction (e.g., a threshold distance of roadway under construction, a threshold number of lanes reduced in a construction zone, etc.), a reference roadway obstruction (e.g., a predefined type of roadway obstruction, a threshold number of lanes reduced because of a roadway obstruction, etc.)) determining, by the SV, the trigger condition for the MRM in response to a specific height of the driving lane obstruction caused by the at least one of the vehicle accident or the structure collapse incident in the driving lane of the road for the SV being greater than or equal to a threshold; or any combination thereof. (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 037; a threshold number of lanes reduced)
To the extent Liu is silent about or does not explicitly teach: or a structure collapse incident being acquired by the SV based on at least one of a camera of the SV, a sensor of the SV, or at least one vehicle neighboring the SV; and Schmidt does teach:
or a structure collapse incident being acquired by the SV based on at least one of a camera of the SV, a sensor of the SV, or at least one vehicle neighboring the SV; and (Schmidt: ¶ 055; controlling an operation of the vehicle 102a in response to determining that the vehicle height and/or the load height is greater than or equal to the threshold height.) (Schmidt: ¶ 010; unit may use the road condition sensor to determine a height of the road obstacle)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Schmidt with the teachings of Liu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "reducing collisions with unmarked overhead hazards" (Schmidt: ¶ 004).
Regarding claim 11, as detailed above, combination Liu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 10. Liu further teaches:
wherein the transceiver receives information indicating an MRM activation request from an infrastructure, (Liu: ¶ 187; before entering the curve, the vehicle receives the road obstruction information sent by the road side unit (RSU). For example, a large stone occupies a road in the curve to block traffic.) (Liu: ¶ 042; monitoring apparatus may be a transceiver in the vehicle, and may be configured to receive driving safety information sent by a road side unit, a server, or the like.) (Liu: ¶ 115; system enters a minimum risk maneuver) . . . wherein the infrastructure comprises a first infrastructure and a second infrastructure, wherein the second infrastructure between the first infrastructure and the second infrastructure is adjacent to the SV, wherein the event information is transmitted to the second infrastructure by the first infrastructure, and (Liu: ¶ 124; vehicle 10 may communicate with the road side unit (RSU) 14 and the server 18, in other words, the vehicle 10 may obtain related road information from the road side unit (RSU) 14 and the server 18 in a running process) (Liu: Fig. 003; [[Examiner: RSU between server and SV]]) wherein the information indicating the MRM activation request is transmitted to the transceiver by the second infrastructure based on the event information. (Liu: ¶ 124; vehicle 10 may communicate with the road side unit (RSU) 14 and the server 18, in other words, the vehicle 10 may obtain related road information from the road side unit (RSU) 14 and the server 18 in a running process) (Liu: ¶ 121; server 18 may send some road abnormal information to the vehicle 10 in advance.)
And Ould-Ahmen-Vall teaches: wherein the information indicating the MRM activation request is transmitted to the SV based on event information related to at least one of a vehicle accident, (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 037; a reference type of traffic accident (e.g., a fender bender, an accident blocking one or more lanes of traffic, etc.), a reference amount of roadway construction (e.g., a threshold distance of roadway under construction, a threshold number of lanes reduced in a construction zone, etc.), a reference roadway obstruction (e.g., a predefined type of roadway obstruction, a threshold number of lanes reduced because of a roadway obstruction, etc.)).
To the extent Liu is silent about or does not explicitly teach: a structure collapse incident, or a combination thereof, Schmidt does teach: a structure collapse incident, or a combination thereof, (Schmidt: ¶ 055; controlling an operation of the vehicle 102a in response to determining that the vehicle height and/or the load height is greater than or equal to the threshold height.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Schmidt with the teachings of Liu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "reducing collisions with unmarked overhead hazards" (Schmidt: ¶ 004).
Regarding claim 12, as detailed above, combination Liu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 10. Liu further teaches:
wherein the SV receives information indicating an MRM activation request based on event information from an infrastructure adjacent to the transceiver, (Liu: ¶ 187; before entering the curve, the vehicle receives the road obstruction information sent by the road side unit (RSU). For example, a large stone occupies a road in the curve to block traffic.) (Liu: ¶ 042; monitoring apparatus may be a transceiver in the vehicle, and may be configured to receive driving safety information sent by a road side unit, a server, or the like.) (Liu: ¶ 115; system enters a minimum risk maneuver)
wherein the event information comprises at least one of a vehicle accident, a structure collapse incident, or a combination thereof, (Liu: ¶ 152; driving safety information may be a received event in which a road is occupied because a vehicle collision accident) . . . the information indicating the MRM activation request is transmitted to the transceiver by the infrastructure (Liu: ¶ 187; before entering the curve, the vehicle receives the road obstruction information sent by the road side unit (RSU). For example, a large stone occupies a road in the curve to block traffic.)
And Ould-Ahmen-Vall teaches: wherein the event information is acquired by the infrastructure based on at least one of a camera of the infrastructure, a sensor of the infrastructure, at least one vehicle neighboring the infrastructure, or any combination thereof, (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 057; the sensor(s) 120 of the mobile navigation device 110 generate sensor data associated with [inter alia] the traffic data may be indicative of a traffic accident identified) (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 060; mobile navigation device 110 generates the alternate route for the remote vehicle 108 based on the sensor data generated by the sensor(s) 120 and the determined occurrence of the reference traffic event.)
wherein, at least one of: the information indicating the MRM activation request is transmitted to the transceiver by the infrastructure in response to a proportion of an area of a driving lane obstruction caused by at least one of the vehicle accident or the structure collapse incident in a driving lane of a road for the SV being greater than or equal to a threshold; (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 037; a reference type of traffic accident (e.g., a fender bender, an accident blocking one or more lanes of traffic, etc.), a reference amount of roadway construction (e.g., a threshold distance of roadway under construction, a threshold number of lanes reduced in a construction zone, etc.), a reference roadway obstruction (e.g., a predefined type of roadway obstruction, a threshold number of lanes reduced because of a roadway obstruction, etc.))
To the extent Liu is silent about or does not explicitly teach: . . . in response to a specific height of the driving lane obstruction caused by at least one of the vehicle accident or the structure collapse incident in the driving lane of the road for the SV being greater than or equal to a threshold; or a combination thereof. Schmidt does teach:
. . . in response to a specific height of the driving lane obstruction caused by at least one of the vehicle accident or the structure collapse incident in the driving lane of the road for the SV being greater than or equal to a threshold; or a combination thereof. (Schmidt: ¶ 020; If the overhead object occupies a single lane, the collision warning system may shift the vehicle to an adjacent lane instead of braking, for example. In another example, the collision warning system may apply the brakes to stop the vehicle from colliding with the overhead object if the overhead obstacle occupies all the lanes.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Schmidt with the teachings of Liu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "reducing collisions with unmarked overhead hazards" (Schmidt: ¶ 004).
Regarding claim 13, as detailed above, combination Liu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 10. Liu further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to, at least one of: determine the trigger condition for the MRM based on an error occurring in at least one of a communication module or a sensing module of the SV; a proportion of an area of a driving lane obstruction caused by at least one of the vehicle accident or the structure collapse incident in a driving lane of a road for the SV being greater than or equal to a threshold; (Liu: ¶ 150; driving safety information may be system fault information of the vehicle . . . ultrasonic sensor for obstacle detection, a dead reckoning sensor for distance measurement, or the like may fail.)
And Ould-Ahmen-Vall teaches: determine the trigger condition for the MRM based on: event information including at least one of a vehicle accident (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 037; a reference type of traffic accident (e.g., a fender bender, an accident blocking one or more lanes of traffic, etc.), a reference amount of roadway construction (e.g., a threshold distance of roadway under construction, a threshold number of lanes reduced in a construction zone, etc.), a reference roadway obstruction (e.g., a predefined type of roadway obstruction, a threshold number of lanes reduced because of a roadway obstruction, etc.)) a proportion of an area of a driving lane obstruction caused by at least one of the vehicle accident or the structure collapse incident in a driving lane of a road for the SV being greater than or equal to a threshold; (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 037; a reference type of traffic accident (e.g., a fender bender, an accident blocking one or more lanes of traffic, etc.), a reference amount of roadway construction (e.g., a threshold distance of roadway under construction, a threshold number of lanes reduced in a construction zone, etc.), a reference roadway obstruction (e.g., a predefined type of roadway obstruction, a threshold number of lanes reduced because of a roadway obstruction, etc.))
To the extent Liu is silent about or does not explicitly teach: or a structure collapse incident being acquired by the transceiver based on at least one of a camera of the SV, a sensor of the SV, at least one vehicle neighboring the SV, or any combination thereof; and . . . determine the trigger condition for the MRM when a specific height of the driving lane obstruction caused by the at least one of the vehicle accident or the structure collapse incident in the driving lane of the road for the SV is greater than or equal to a threshold; or any combination thereof. Schmidt does teach:
or a structure collapse incident being acquired by the transceiver based on at least one of a camera of the SV, a sensor of the SV, at least one vehicle neighboring the SV, or any combination thereof; and (Schmidt: ¶ 055; controlling an operation of the vehicle 102a in response to determining that the vehicle height and/or the load height is greater than or equal to the threshold height.) . . . determine the trigger condition for the MRM when a specific height of the driving lane obstruction caused by the at least one of the vehicle accident or the structure collapse incident in the driving lane of the road for the SV is greater than or equal to a threshold; or any combination thereof. (Schmidt: ¶ 055; controlling an operation of the vehicle 102a in response to determining that the vehicle height and/or the load height is greater than or equal to the threshold height.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Schmidt with the teachings of Liu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "reducing collisions with unmarked overhead hazards" (Schmidt: ¶ 004).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Liu as applied to claims 7 above, and further in view of Hiramatsu et al. (US 20220144277 A1).
Regarding claim 8, as detailed above, combination Liu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 7. To the extent Liu is silent about or does not explicitly teach:
wherein in response to a change in the MRM type while the ADS is performing the MRM, the method further comprises controlling the ADS to prevent multiple MRM type changes from delaying attainment of the MRC; Hiramatsu does teach:
wherein in response to a change in the MRM type while the ADS is performing the MRM, the method further comprises controlling the ADS to prevent multiple MRM type changes from delaying attainment of the MRC. (Hiramatsu: ¶ 125; the controller 101 stops executing the preparation control for the lane change when the following vehicle is traveling on the adjacent lane side relative to the center line of the subject lane along the travel direction of the subject vehicle.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hiramatsu with the teachings of Liu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "better adapting to traffic conditions ahead of the vehicle" (Hiramatsu: ¶ 003-004).
Claims 3-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Liu as applied to claims 2, 1, and 10 above, and further in view of Schmidt et al. (US 20200156630 A1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed March 27, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s actions with respect to priority documents are effective and the application priority date is established.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claim 10 is persuasive and the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are persuasive. Applicant argues that:
Liu fails to disclose all of the features of claim 1, as amended, including: "determining, by the ADS, whether a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) is needed to reduce a risk of collision with an object, based on a trigger condition for the MRM being activated; and controlling, by the ADS, the SV to execute an automated driving MRM that satisfies a minimum risk condition (MRC), wherein the trigger condition for activating the MRM includes: a first condition of receiving MRM activation request information from an external entity; and a second condition of determining the trigger condition for the MRM and performing the MRM by the SV". For at least the reasons above, the applied reference fail to teach all of the features recited in independent claim 1. Independent claim 10, although different in scope, recites features similar to those in claim 1 and the arguments above are applicable against the rejection thereof. (Applicant’s Arguments filed March 27, 2026, pg. PP).
Examiner disagrees and points to applied prior art Liu at ¶ 187 which teaches an external entity (RSU) providing a trigger for a SV that is at risk of collision with an object (a large stone).
However, while Liu is silent or does not explicitly teach “wherein the trigger condition for activating the MRM includes: a first condition of receiving MRM activation request information from an external entity; and a second condition of determining the trigger condition for the MRM and performing the MRM by the SV,” newly applied art to the independent claims Ould-Ahmen-Vall does teach the limitation.
In particular Ould-Ahmen-Vall teaches a system in which a remote mobile navigation device [108] determines if another vehicle shares a common route and if it does, the remote vehicles transfers information of a traffic event occurring and provides data for the vehicle to avoid the referenced traffic event (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 059). In response to receiving the information, the self-vehicle [110] analyzes the received data and determines if such an action should be undertaken (Ould-Ahmen-Vall: ¶ 059; Fig. 1). Consequently, “wherein the trigger condition for activating the MRM includes: a first condition of receiving MRM activation request information from an external entity; and a second condition of determining the trigger condition for the MRM and performing the MRM by the SV" because the remote vehicle [108] is an external entity and the data of the traffic event occurring is a MRM activation request because the remote vehicle is giving specific avoidance instructions. Finally the self-vehicle processing that data is determine the trigger condition. Therefore the claims remain rejected.
PNG
media_image2.png
490
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Newly amended claim 2 is rejected over newly applied art Li (US 20210204306 A1) which teaches a system wherein a first RSU transfers information regarding a traffic accident to a second RSU which transfers it to a third RSU which broadcasts the information to vehicles within range. Therefore the claim 1-16 remain rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Kutila et al. (US 20190294167 A1) which discloses a method for determining an optimal lane trajectory and route for an autonomous vehicle when the road is unexpectedly narrowed due to snow or obstacles.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights